Clean Power Alone Won’t Save BRICS From Its Fossil Fuel Trap

The global energy transition will not be won or lost at the margins; it will be shaped by what happens in the world's largest emerging economies, where energy demand, industrial expansion, trade growth and climate pressure are colliding in real time. A new study published in Energies puts that challenge under the microscope.

Titled "The Asymmetric Effect of Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy on CO2 Emissions in BRICS Countries: Evidence from Nonlinear Panel NARDL," the paper by Hlalefang Khobai of the University of Johannesburg and Nyiko Worship Hlongwane of Sol Plaatje University examines how renewable energy, non-renewable energy, capital stock, labour and trade openness affect CO2 emissions in BRICS countries from 1991 to 2022.

Renewable energy helps reduce emissions, but fossil fuel dependence remains so deeply embedded in BRICS economies that clean energy expansion alone cannot carry the transition. The study finds that renewable energy consumption consistently reduces CO2 emissions in the short and long run, while non-renewable energy significantly increases emissions. It also finds that reducing fossil fuel dependence can deliver stronger environmental gains than simply increasing renewables, especially in higher-emission contexts.

The World's Climate Fight Runs Through BRICS

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) are central to the global emissions story. The paper notes that BRICS countries are responsible for 43.3% of global carbon emissions, consume 40% of the world's energy and rank among the top 15 emitting countries globally. Their energy systems remain heavily dependent on coal, oil and natural gas, while renewables account for a smaller share of total energy consumption.

This makes BRICS both a climate risk and a climate opportunity. If these economies decarbonize while sustaining growth, they can shift the global emissions trajectory. If their industrial expansion remains tied to fossil fuels, the world's chances of meeting climate targets will narrow sharply.

The study addresses a key weakness in many energy-transition debates: the assumption that energy choices affect emissions in a simple, linear way. In reality, increasing renewable energy may not have the same impact as losing renewable capacity or policy momentum. Reducing fossil fuel use may produce a different effect from merely slowing its growth. The authors therefore use models designed to capture asymmetry, long-run effects and differences across emission levels, rather than relying only on average relationships.

Renewables Work, but Transition Reversals Are Costly

Renewable energy reduces emissions in BRICS countries. In the short run, the study finds that a 1% increase in positive renewable energy shocks reduces CO2 emissions by 0.0705%. In the long run, a 1% positive shock to renewable energy reduces emissions by 0.09%.

For policymakers, this supports what climate advocates, energy planners and investors have long argued: expanding renewable energy is not just a symbolic climate move. It produces measurable environmental gains. However, the study adds an important warning. Renewable energy progress is vulnerable to disruption. The long-run results suggest that reductions in renewable energy use can weaken environmental gains, meaning policy instability, financing slowdowns, grid constraints or delayed infrastructure investment can carry real emissions costs.

This is especially relevant for BRICS economies, where renewable growth must be matched by storage, transmission infrastructure, regulatory certainty and investment security. Solar panels and wind farms cannot deliver their full climate value if power grids remain weak, storage systems lag or fossil fuel plants continue to dominate dispatch decisions.

Renewable deployment must be treated as a long-term systems project, not a short-term procurement target. Stable auctions, bankable contracts, transmission planning, energy storage and clear regulation will matter as much as headline renewable capacity additions.

Fossil Fuel Cuts Are the Hardest Test and the Biggest Prize

The most powerful finding concerns non-renewable energy. The study reports that a 1% increase in positive shocks to non-renewable energy consumption raises CO2 emissions by 1.0454%, while a 1% negative shock to non-renewable energy consumption reduces emissions by 0.9276%.

Fossil fuel use is not just one variable among many. It remains the dominant emissions driver. Many countries prefer politically easier climate strategies: add renewables, promote efficiency, attract green finance, but avoid confronting the pace and structure of fossil fuel phase-down. The study suggests that this approach will be insufficient for BRICS economies. Renewable expansion can lower emissions, but continued fossil fuel growth can overwhelm or dilute those gains.

The findings also reinforce the logic of a just energy transition. Fossil fuel phase-down cannot be abrupt or socially blind. Coal regions, industrial workers, energy-intensive firms and low-income households will all be affected by transition policy. However, delaying the phase-down does not remove the cost; it shifts it into higher emissions, future adjustment pressure and greater climate risk.

For governments, the policy toolkit must therefore include energy diversification, carbon pricing where feasible, emissions standards, clean-energy incentives, efficiency mandates and targeted support for affected workers and regions. The study does not prescribe a single pathway, and it rightly notes that policy design should reflect country-specific conditions. But it makes clear that fossil fuel dependence is the bottleneck that BRICS economies cannot avoid.

Green Growth Will Depend on Capital, Skills and Trade

The study also shows why energy transition cannot be separated from development policy. Capital stock, labour and trade openness all shape emissions outcomes. Capital investment has mixed effects. In the short run, capital expansion can raise emissions by increasing production, energy demand and industrial activity. However, over time, investment can reduce emissions when it flows into cleaner technologies, efficient production systems and sustainable infrastructure. This distinction matters for development banks, finance ministries and private investors: the question is not only how much capital BRICS economies mobilize, but where that capital goes.

Labour also plays a role. The study finds that human capital and productivity improvements can support cleaner production, suggesting that climate policy should be linked to education, vocational training, industrial upgrading and green jobs. A low-carbon transition without workforce planning risks becoming politically fragile and socially uneven.

Trade openness presents a more complicated picture. The study finds that trade is associated with higher emissions in BRICS, reflecting energy-intensive trade structures. This does not mean trade should be restricted. It means trade policy must become climate-aware. Export growth tied to carbon-heavy production will deepen environmental pressure; trade linked to clean technology, greener supply chains and environmental standards can support transition.

Governments need renewable energy expansion, fossil fuel reduction, better investment quality, workforce development and cleaner production systems. But the authors caution that their empirical results identify relationships rather than ready-made prescriptions, meaning implementation must be shaped by each country's institutions, economy and energy system.

The study's limitations also matter. It uses aggregate country-level data, which cannot fully capture sector-specific dynamics in electricity, transport, heavy industry, agriculture or manufacturing. Future research, the authors argue, should include governance quality, regulatory effectiveness, sectoral emissions, spatial spillovers, technological innovation, digitalization, green finance, higher-frequency data and firm-level evidence.

To sum up, BRICS countries can build more renewable energy and still miss the climate moment if fossil fuel dependence remains structurally untouched. The transition will require clean power, but also cleaner capital, skilled workers, greener trade and credible fossil fuel phase-down.